The Editor-in-Chief will conduct an initial assessment of each submitted manuscript based on its alignment with the journal’s focus and scope. If the manuscript meets these criteria, the Editor-in-Chief will assign it to a member of the editorial team (editor) to perform a second evaluation based on the scientific quality and validity of the article and its methodology, the relevance of the article, the level of interest of the topic to readers, as well as the presentation and clarity of the manuscript.

If the manuscript is deemed suitable for the peer review process, it will be reviewed by three to five members of the journal’s reviewer board who have no potential conflicts of interest. If the editor is unable to identify suitable reviewers, they will seek other experts of comparable reputation based on their expertise and standing in the relevant field. The peer review process applied is single-blind (the reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to the authors).

Reviewers will return their recommendations and reports to the editor, providing general comments to the editor and both general and specific comments to the author(s). Constructive comments intended to help authors improve their work will be conveyed anonymously (even if the manuscript is not accepted). Subsequently, the editor will assess all feedback collectively and make a decision, either independently or in consultation with other editors, on whether to reject the manuscript. The final decision regarding publication eligibility rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

The editor will communicate the final evaluation outcome (rejected, accepted, or accepted with revisions), including the reviewers’ comments. Revised manuscripts may undergo further peer review if deemed necessary.